Ok well I’m going to continue trusting my eyes and lived experience over an internet stranger who has a forbidden tome of knowledge.
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains. All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Yes as I said, my apologies for the lack of citation. But the book is far from forbidden, it’s a standard academic work written by leading exercise science researchers. Their work is universally cited, which is why I encourage you to look towards academic sources rather than advertisements
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains
To be clear, what you said was:
you can get very puffed up muscle that isn’t super strong
Which is a debunked myth. So you’re walking that back now which is good.
People can definitely add significant strength without significant size, up to a point, for individualized training blocks. But if you train, even only for strength, your muscles will get larger. In your lived experience, do you have any example of someone who brought their strict press from 35lbs to 185lbs without increasing the size of their shoulders? Have you seen someone with small legs squat 455?
I’m not walking it back. Initially I simplified it so that the average person could understand it, then you came in guns blazing and turned it into a scientific debate, making it seem like muscle density doesn’t exist at all as a concept. I didn’t want to make it complicated for people just starting out, all beginners care about is results, they don’t really need to know the science. You usually end up learning as you go anyway.
The fact is that muscle density, muscle size, and functional strength are all variables. Both muscle density and muscle size increase strength, which I think was our misunderstanding.
You can have large size with low density, which is still way stronger than doing no exercise at all, of course. That’s what I was referring to before with my puffed up comment. Not useless muscles, just less muscle per muscle. Still muscle, still healthy and helpful.
You can also have low size with high density. This is the “skinny strong” I was referring to.
But best of all you can have high size with high density. The effects multiply on each other. I imagine this is the one you’re helping people create.
Of course, if you exercise, you will gain size, but depending on how you do it, you may gain more density than size per unit of time in the gym. You’ll always get a bit of both though. It’s a ratio thing.
To answer your anecdotal question, I do know someone who just cannot put on bulk for some reason. I suspect it’s either an undiagnosed medical disease, or very unlucky genetics. Anyway, they work out a lot, and are much stronger than me or many people I know, despite being “wiry” and smaller. Their arms are like corded steel. They continuously get better results every month, though I think they might be hitting some sort of upper limit in how much muscle that can be physically crammed per square centimetre of body tissue.
Right on, yeah I think we’re pretty much on the same page now.
I apologize for coming in hot. My main issue really is just with the popular myth that the ratio you’re referring to is very extreme and necessitates totally different styles of training. It’s often used to mislead women in particular, who are baited into purchasing expensive yet ineffective programs that “won’t make them bulky”. But as we continue speaking I can see that you’re not advocating for that
Well, in context, the other dude who you began your comment by supporting had been in the thread arguing that people shouldn’t lift weights at all. And then I felt your initial simplified phrasing of what you were saying kind of rolled into that. But I’m glad we were able to progress the discussion amicably
Ok well I’m going to continue trusting my eyes and lived experience over an internet stranger who has a forbidden tome of knowledge.
I also think there was a miscommunication here. I’m not saying that hypertrophy doesn’t result in strength gains. All I’m saying is, that it’s possible to end up with “dense muscle”, or “skinny strong”, which might be an undesirable / desirable outcome for some people depending on what they actually want. I was pointing out the difference for people who haven’t started any strength training at all yet, so they can make informed decisions about their research and routines. Either choice is a good one, it’s entirely personal preference.
Yes as I said, my apologies for the lack of citation. But the book is far from forbidden, it’s a standard academic work written by leading exercise science researchers. Their work is universally cited, which is why I encourage you to look towards academic sources rather than advertisements
To be clear, what you said was:
Which is a debunked myth. So you’re walking that back now which is good.
People can definitely add significant strength without significant size, up to a point, for individualized training blocks. But if you train, even only for strength, your muscles will get larger. In your lived experience, do you have any example of someone who brought their strict press from 35lbs to 185lbs without increasing the size of their shoulders? Have you seen someone with small legs squat 455?
I’m not walking it back. Initially I simplified it so that the average person could understand it, then you came in guns blazing and turned it into a scientific debate, making it seem like muscle density doesn’t exist at all as a concept. I didn’t want to make it complicated for people just starting out, all beginners care about is results, they don’t really need to know the science. You usually end up learning as you go anyway.
The fact is that muscle density, muscle size, and functional strength are all variables. Both muscle density and muscle size increase strength, which I think was our misunderstanding.
Of course, if you exercise, you will gain size, but depending on how you do it, you may gain more density than size per unit of time in the gym. You’ll always get a bit of both though. It’s a ratio thing.
To answer your anecdotal question, I do know someone who just cannot put on bulk for some reason. I suspect it’s either an undiagnosed medical disease, or very unlucky genetics. Anyway, they work out a lot, and are much stronger than me or many people I know, despite being “wiry” and smaller. Their arms are like corded steel. They continuously get better results every month, though I think they might be hitting some sort of upper limit in how much muscle that can be physically crammed per square centimetre of body tissue.
Right on, yeah I think we’re pretty much on the same page now.
I apologize for coming in hot. My main issue really is just with the popular myth that the ratio you’re referring to is very extreme and necessitates totally different styles of training. It’s often used to mislead women in particular, who are baited into purchasing expensive yet ineffective programs that “won’t make them bulky”. But as we continue speaking I can see that you’re not advocating for that
No worries, sometimes when you come in guns blazing you accidentally shoot an ally 🙂
Well, in context, the other dude who you began your comment by supporting had been in the thread arguing that people shouldn’t lift weights at all. And then I felt your initial simplified phrasing of what you were saying kind of rolled into that. But I’m glad we were able to progress the discussion amicably